Kanewiki01

May 2023

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

But i have added references so there is no point to reverting it back Kanewiki01 (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Please sir stop showing so much biasness against the film, i have added references in the support subheading. the wikipedia page only shows the negative flaws and ignores the positive outlooks. Thus, I collected information from all the sources and provided the information with references. You have to give reason before reverting it back Kanewiki01 (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Every single part of your edit is problematic in one respect or another. None of your edits are formatted properly, you are changing sourced descriptions such as "negative reception" to "positive reception", removing other reliably sourced content and changing them with the use of deprecated sources. This kind of conduct is purely disruptive. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

So i just added support subheading under response with valid references. Now, this is pure neutral. Wiki page provides all negative responses but it doesn't knows positive feedback and support after it is released. Kanewiki01 (talk) 12:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I have not changed any description like negative reception to positive reception. It was changed by any other user, you can check the history of that page. Kanewiki01 (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes you did change that among a host of other things, Special:Diff/1155497296. And your latest edit is still improperly formatted and written like tabloid headlines, includes removal of sourced content and most of the addition even if were to be properly written is either undue, synthesis or already mentioned in the above section, making it a repetition. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 12:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Under the response heading, there are many repetitive stuffs such as ban and protest is already discuussed above. So why would that not be removed? That's in no way a neutral wiki page. Negative phrases can be repeated many times under several headings but positive ones are to be removed instantly. Is it not ironical? Where is it written that bolywood supported the movie? and Prime minister's statement should be given more importance so it must be written seperately. Where is it mentioned that Kerelea Catholics supported the movie and facts? Still the content I am adding is termed as repetitive. Kanewiki01 (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

In the main introductory head, it is stated that BJP supported the movie to win over karnataka election but still BJP lost it and the reference given is by outlookindia. How could it be serious? It looks as if a kid has written it. There has been many cases filed against outlookindia by tatasons and other companies. outlookindia has very less subscribers and is totally not credible but still people are using those references and it is not being removed. Kanewiki01 (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 17:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The Kerala Story: a warning

Hi, Kanewiki. There is by now so much writing at Talk:The Kerala Story (especially writing by you) that I'm afraid you may miss my block warning, so I'm putting it here as well. I just replied to your post where you claimed that you "looked into an article in wikipedia it says that the judgement of courts are reliable source under wikipedia so Supreme court's judgement is highly authoritative". The Wikipedia page you were talking about was Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law). This was so worrying that I thought I'd better warn you to stop wasting everybody's time or you may be blocked from the page. This is what I posted there:

That's an essay, not a policy, and it says nothing about Wikipedia being able to use a judgment in a court of law as a reliable source. Not a word. And of course we can't do that — it would fly in the face of common sense. Kanewiki01, you are seriously beginning to waste people's time here, and I'm beginning to consider blocking you from this page. Please don't offer Wikipedia pages, such as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (law), here without first having made an honest effort to read and understand them.

I hope that was quite clear. Bishonen | tålk 21:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC).

It was my fault to not read it carefully but my other points are valid and cannot be ignored. Even if fictionalized story cannot be removed but the support heading should be added under response heading. Kanewiki01 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making over the top personal attacks based upon editors' presumed religion.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Abecedare (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kanewiki01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not presumed any religious against that person. That person has already written on his user talk page that he is a member of arab and msulim communities and so on but I had no problem with that. But his biasness is very clear from the fact that he is always available to edit the articles which involves muslims and hindus. To check him, I saw Delhi riots2020 page, Godhara kand 2002, The kashmir files, and every page related to hindu muslims tensions, he is available to edit it so he definitely has conflict of interest and whenever I say anything with references I am warned to be blocked by them and finally I am blocked before the admins could check his conflict of interest. The other user has also removed my thread in the talk page of kerela story so that no other admins could see and read my valid point and refrences.

Decline reason:

Please take your religious bigotry elsewhere. I think your only chance at being unblocked is to agree to a topic ban from religious issues in India. 331dot (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.